I suppose it does. It's certainly better than going ahead with the marriage for money. But I just didn't like Rose. She just seemed so vain and melodramatic and motivated by things, which in some sense is understandable, but it's still annoying. And yet both of the brothers are in love with her? Despite the presence of the far more interesting and witty younger sister? Life is so unjust.
It redeemed her for me, although I wasn't crazy about her either. In the end, she married for love, not money. As the younger son, Neil won't inherit any of the British wealth and, while they definitely won't do without, he will have to work and theirs won't be a life of aristocratic privilege.
Another thing about Rose: She was never impressed by her father's literary aspirations or accomplishments. She's the one who flatly said, "It's just sheer laziness — laziness and softness. And I don't believe he was ever very good, really. I expect 'Jacob Wrestling' was overestimated."
Hehe! Is that just her Philistinism talking or does she have a point?
Isn't it odd that she would run off to America in the end when part of her motivation all along was supposedly to help elevate the condition of her family?
Overall I found her greedy and frivolous. Didn't Cassandra mention along that Rose couldn't cook, couldn't sew, didn't care much about fancy food, disliked literature, music, theatre. It was as if she balanced out Cassandra's curiosity and ability with her vapid personality.
I had the impression that her connection with the Cottons would elevate her family, no matter where she herself lived. If nothing else, they will never have to pay for lodging or food. And she'll probably make good on her desire to send Cassandra to college, if possible.
6 comments:
I suppose it does. It's certainly better than going ahead with the marriage for money. But I just didn't like Rose. She just seemed so vain and melodramatic and motivated by things, which in some sense is understandable, but it's still annoying. And yet both of the brothers are in love with her? Despite the presence of the far more interesting and witty younger sister? Life is so unjust.
It redeemed her for me, although I wasn't crazy about her either. In the end, she married for love, not money. As the younger son, Neil won't inherit any of the British wealth and, while they definitely won't do without, he will have to work and theirs won't be a life of aristocratic privilege.
Another thing about Rose: She was never impressed by her father's literary aspirations or accomplishments. She's the one who flatly said, "It's just sheer laziness — laziness and softness. And I don't believe he was ever very good, really. I expect 'Jacob Wrestling' was overestimated."
Hehe! Is that just her Philistinism talking or does she have a point?
Hehe. OK, I forgot about Rose's disparaging remarks about her father. That almost redeems her for me.
Isn't it odd that she would run off to America in the end when part of her motivation all along was supposedly to help elevate the condition of her family?
Overall I found her greedy and frivolous. Didn't Cassandra mention along that Rose couldn't cook, couldn't sew, didn't care much about fancy food, disliked literature, music, theatre. It was as if she balanced out Cassandra's curiosity and ability with her vapid personality.
I had the impression that her connection with the Cottons would elevate her family, no matter where she herself lived. If nothing else, they will never have to pay for lodging or food. And she'll probably make good on her desire to send Cassandra to college, if possible.
Post a Comment